Statement From General Wesley Clark On The Capture Of Saddam Hussein

From the Hague --------> Let's see Dubya give Saddam an airplane ride to Den Haag to visit with General Clark.

http://clark04.com/press/release/127/

Press Room

For Immediate Release
Date: December 14, 2003

Statement From General Wesley Clark On The Capture Of Saddam Hussein

The Hague - "I could not be prouder of the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces for capturing this horrible despot. This is a testament to their courage and determination. I'd also like to congratulate Lt. General Sanchez and the intelligence community for the crucial role they played. We've been due good news from Iraq and the world is a safer and better place now that he is in custody."

The world is a different place. Whether it's safer remains to be seen, as the wheels of the inevitable power struggle and potential civil war have now begun to turn.

450 dead U.S. troops, thousands of troops wounded, thousands of Iraqis dead. Why did we not offer $25 million, even a hundred million, as a bounty to begin with?

Where is Osama? Does bush** remember him? He's the one who orchestrated 9-11. For some reason, Saddam's pathetic capture does not make me feel like cheering ...

Saddam is in custody. A bomb just went off in Iraq. What is Clark smoking?!

saying the "world is a better place" is that we will be able to put him on trial and the world will benefit from that! Seeing an evil man brought to justice helps our relations with the world. He has said over and over that Saddam was not an immediate threat. He is not talking about immediate safety of our troops and WMD. He is speaking of a world impact that a trial would have.

before they captured Saddam? So, contrary to what all of the major Dems, including Dean have been saying, it's bad that they have captured Saddam?

Clark doesn't think that the U.S. should have gone into Iraq, but since it has and has knocked down the regime there, everyone is better off with Saddam captured.

And Clark did not say that Iraq or the world are safe or terrorism or conflict free because the U.S. captured Saddam; he said that it was safer--which is true, if even a single Iraqi is less likely to join the insurgency as a result. And considering the happiness that many Iraqis are expressing at Saddam's capture, this seems to be true. So what have YOU been smoking?

he is the wrong man.

without a rallying point, the Baathists have less ability to continue.

No one believed that this would immediately cease terrorist attacks. I find it intersting assuming that the report I heard was true, that they were trying to blow up the journalists hotel.

Clark was right. A lame statement, even Kucinich's was better, but not incorrect.

and I'm disappointed in the part about the world being a safer and better place now that Saddam is in custody. That's just stupid. Clark just lost some cred with me.

The people in that region are certainly safer now that the threat of Saddam has been removed. Notice he didn't say America was safer, but the world. Still, he could have given a better statement, but I'm sure he's got a lot of important things on his mind right now.

How is it that the people in the region are safer? Are you referring to the people in Iraq who were afraid of Saddam? If so, sure, maybe they feel safer, but are they really? Are the raids going to stop? Maybe, if and when the attacks stop. Are the occupiers going to leave? No. They put a Baathist general in charge of the police. Who's safer? Besides the current occupant of the White House, I mean.

We're just bitter the BFEE isn't going with him. A good response IMO would be to show pictures of Saddam in better days, shaking Rumsfeld's hand.

This was quite simply a misstep on Clark's part. I can't see the wisdom in saying "the world is a safer place" after a pre-emptive invasion that undermined the UN (a worldwide organization) with no WMD found that appears to have led to a long occupation with many people dead (and many more to come) and provided a fertile ground for international terrorism where none had existed before. There's more, but isn't this enough to point out the error of a candidate opposing Bush saying "the world is a safer place" because a guy in a country that posed no threat to the rest of the world was captured?

Clark was addressing Saddam's capture simpliciter.

The troops are in Iraq--until the Democrats regain power, that is unlikely to change.

And given this situation, the world is clearly safer with Saddam captured than with him free, as it cuts down, even if only slightly, reasons everyday people have for acting violently in Iraq.

All of the Democrats criticized Bush for not finding Osama and Saddam. And now that U.S. troops have found Saddam, what, they're supposed to change their minds about whether capturing Saddam is a good thing. That makes no sense.

The invasion simply replaced a gang of murderers with a gang of thieves. Let's not kid ourselves. Bush may not be principally a murderer, but he is willing to kill as many Iraqis as it takes to hand control of their natural resources over to those who contributed to his unsuccessful presidential campaign and his successful coup d'etat three years ago.

Saddam's brutal tyranny was a pretext for the invasion and nothing else. That he is in custody is a good thing. However, it still does not excuse the lies the Bushies told to justify the invasion or the colonial occupation of Iraq. The present occupation exists for the benefit of Bush's corporate cronies, not the Iraqi people. Saddam was removed from power because he was an inconvenience to US corporate interests. If we really had any concern about Saddam's brutality, we would have removed him from power when we had the opportunity in 1991.

The US colonial occupation must end and be replaced by an international effort to transition Iraq to a regime responsible to the Iraqi people and with their welfare as their first and foremost concern. I am looking for Democratic presidential candidates to say that.

when Saddam was free and scaring people into not trying to work toward peace in Iraq?

All of the major Democrats were previously criticizing Bush for not having captured Osama and Saddam--were they lying then?

Note that he is not saying that the world is a safer and better for having invaded Iraq. Instead, he is saying that it is safer and better than it was yesterday, when the U.S. had invaded Iraq, but without having captured Saddam.

Where'd you get the idea I was suggesting the world was safer and better when Saddam was free and scaring people or at any other time? And no, I don't think the major democrats were lying, and I don't understand why you asked me that. I just don't think the world is any safer today than it was yesterday, and I'm disappointed that Clark said that.

Who's supposed to know so much about military stuff...

"the world will be a much better and safer place now that saddam hussein is in custody"----WTF?

That's dumb-----Saddam Hussein never led any of the insurgent attacks in Iraq. His removal certainly doesn't make the world a "safer and better" place.

whereas Saddam was only one guy, and the anti-occupation forces will continue to fight so long as we're there, saddam free meant a lot of people were 'on the fence'

i think the odds are that with him out of the picture, the internal iraq security situation gets a lot better. A new Iraqi govt wasnt going to gain any traction in terms of internal legitimacy with Saddam roaming the hills.

This really can help Iraq - and if Iraq doesnt dissolve into a civil war fiasco - then the region doesnt walk the way to meifumado.

That is, the world is dangerous place, terrorists could strike at any moment, and so you need a general in the White House.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

As far as it goes, it's fine. However, it needed to go further.

The capture of Saddam still does not justify the invasion. By itself, it will not imporve the lives of the Iraqi people. It will not prevent the kidnapping of rape of one Iraqi woman because Bremer and his gang thieves will not allow Iraqis to arrange for their own security when DynCorp can make profits doing it.

The resistance to the occupation is still resistance to colonial rule. The colonial regime must be replaced by one that will transition Iraq to a self-sufficient society with the people able to determine for themselves how that society will be governed and themselves benefitting from the natural wealth of the Iraqi land.

The troops need to know that they are being supported, even if the invasion is wrong.

Clark has been very consistent in opposing the invasion, and that he congratulates the troops for capturing Saddam changes that not one whit. And I agree with the poster below who notes that the main target of his congratulations are the troops. With * cutting their benefits and treating them like crap, they need all of the morale boost they can get.

As for what needs to be done with reconstruction and so on, I agree with you that these ARE separate issues to Saddam's capture, which is why Clark is not addressing them in this statement. Clark has consistently addressed what he thinks needs to be done to restore sovereignty to the Iraqis as well as how the Bush Administration has erred; and he will continue this criticism when he returns from the Hague.

First of all, I should point out that I am not committed to a candidate. General Clark is high on my list. Nevertheless, I believe that General Clark has had a problem defining his position on issues. This statement could be cited as an example of why he has that problem.

The troops need to know that they are being supported, even if the invasion is wrong.

Well and good. I have no problem with this one-paragraph comment by Clark for what it said. However, a White House press release could have said this, too.

My problem is that it doesn't say that the invasion was wrong, either on a moral or pragmatic point.

Clark has been very consistent in opposing the invasion, and that he congratulates the troops for capturing Saddam changes that not one whit.

I am aware of Clark's opposition to the invasion. He wouldn't be high on my list if he had supported it. However, at a time like this, he should make mention of his opposition, of his reasons for having opposed it or of his own plans for Iraq. He doesn't.

Mr. Kucinich's statement was more to the point. He, too, congratulats the troops and hails the capture as a positive event. Then he mentions the need for the occupation to end.

Dr. Dean also hails Saddam's capture. Then he goes on to call the capture a "new opportunity" to change our direction in Iraq.

These statements are a little more complete. I simply think Clark should have also been more complete.

testifying against a captured murderer dictator from a war that we won (with no support or acknowledgement from the Republicans for our military or our President) and now they're acting like this is the conclusion of Saudi's flying airplanes into our buildings. Does anyone, anywhere feel safer (including families of World Trade Center) because we got Saddam? I think not. I'm certainly proud of our military and so grateful that none were killed and I'm glad Saddam was taken alive so he can be put on trial. Not for a minute do I think the terrorists are going to stop in Iraq - because we brought them there and now they will just pick off more of our military one at a time or worse.

Now does Clark think that they should be there in the first place? No. But given that they are there, it's better that they capture Saddam instead of leave him free. Sheesh.

Oh, and not to mention NGOs and UN organizations in Iraq. They perhaps should be there, and I'm glad they feel safer.

because we got Saddam. We've been told for some time now by the Administration that it didn't matter whether we had him or not and apparently he was "directing" nothing so the killing was going on and on and I'm afraid it still will. I'm glad they got him and am always proud of our military (including General Clark) - at least they don't have to go out looking for him now.

That would imply WMD - does Clark know something we don't? I thought they hadn't been found.

He should have left out "the world is a safer and better place" - that seems to justify what the Bush Administration did by invading Iraq.

And ignoring the real terrorist threat to the world.

What about Osama bin Laden? The Taliban and Al Qaeda flourishing in Pakistan? Saudi Arabia's financing of terrorism?

How is the world a safer place? To me, thanks to Bush's actions in Iraq, and lack of action elsewhere, it's a very, very dangerous place.

And capturing an old powerless guy cowering in a hole we already defeated did not change that.

I think Clark's heart is in the right place, but saying things like this worries me. If he's not a seasoned enough politician to pick up on the significance of saying these things in a flash, then I would hope he'd get a better writer.

but he's in a campaign, so I suspect he wasn't talking to you or me but to "potential" supporters who actually think this is a much bigger deal than it really is.

The White House frames the discussion on this, and they're building it up to be some great success-- even a justification of the war. In a campaign, you don't get very far raining on their parade when the public is lapping it up.

Later, there is plenty of time to bring some sense into the discussion when the hoopla dies down. Now that they got him, they're bound to screw it up somehow, and that's the time to attack them.

And remind everyone that the "War on Terror" isn't going very well.

Clark did not say that world is a safe place because the U.S. captured Saddam. He said that it was safer. The statement in no way denies that those other factors are problems, but it does appropriate note that capturing Saddam makes the world incrementally and marginally safer. This you cannot deny, especially if Saddam's capture has a psychological effect in indicating to Iraqis that the old regime is permanently gone, making them less likely to join the insurgency--and from the celebration on the streets of Iraq.

Democrats can't deny this either--most of the major Dems, including Dean and Clark, have been criticizing Bush for not capturing both Saddam and Osama. Well, now we've captured him, and we'd best not look like hypocrites by not cheering it.

heh. now who's looking silly now? ;-)

Does this logic appeal to you?

Then join the Joe Lieberman campaign!

He'll defeat Bush by being just like him!

DEAN is the one who made it his centerpiece- CLAIMING he would have voted against it.
DEAN is the one who attacked the other candidates for whatever their positions on the IWR.

Dean is also the Candidate with NO FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE.

He's the one who doesn't know whether Osama should be tried in the Hague or not.
He's the one who called Russia the Soviet Union FOUR times in an interview.

At best, Dean is qualified to be Vice President.

"it is an honor to have you" -Chris Mathews
He also says that Clark has experience with trials of war criminals and is gaining more experience.

Clark was addressing his remarks first and foremost to the troops. He was doing what any good leader would do when his men accomplish a major mission objective. He was praising them and boosting their morale. His words were appropriate under the circumstances.

This is great news!
Since the world is now safer, we dont need a fucking general as president!